DATE OF DISPOSAL: 14.03.2019
Mr. Karuna Kar Nayak, President:
The complainant G. Krishna Rao has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Branded Laptop computer of HCL from the O.P.No.1 for Rs.23,000/- on dated 30.12.2011 bearing Model No. B111-AEO 74339 of configuration Aelv 2963-DC-2gb-320gb. In the month of August 2012 the key board and the mother board started inherent manufacturing defects and did not provided proper results. In this regard the complainant made several e-mail ID complaints through M/s Altek Solutions, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha vide e-mail ID No. 85009232 dated 20.08.2012 for defects in keyboard and 85001109742 dated 13.09.2012 and 8501240189 dated 01.10.2012 for defects in mother board. The deputed authorized service engineer tried his level best to make it correct, but did not get succeeded because the same is like that of beyond repairable nature. So presently the Laptop is not performing its usual functions, which it need to be possessed for. The said Laptop computer developed some sangs beyond reparable and the same brought to the knowledge of the O.Ps above and for that the both O.P.No.1 and 2 kept lukewarm response to make it properly functional. For the reasons of in convenience meted out by the above complainant, he got issued a legal notice dated 10.10.2012 on both the O.P.No.1 & 2 stating that the complainant would be constrained with no other option, except to go for regular litigations for claiming the damages and replacement of the defective laptop computer against the above O.Ps. The complainant is a busy insurance agent advisor working with the LIC and his insured clients details are stored in the laptop and he is facing trouble in retrieving clients’ details with due diligence. Despite the complainant being the owner to the laptop, his daily workout are being done by manual manner with aid of pen and paper which is constraint because of inherent defectiveness of the laptop provided by the O.Ps above. Inspite of said legal notice, both the O.P.No.1 & 2 kept quite without tendering any response/reply to the complainant or his advocate. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to rectify the defect by replacing a new laptop computer, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 14.12.2015.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 & 3 filed written version and written argument on belated stage on dated 07.03.2019 without obtaining no objection from the previous advocates. It is stated that this case filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be rejected. In response to Para 1 & 2 it is replied that the present O.Ps have not caused any deficiency in service as well as not adopted any unfair trade practice in selling the laptop bearing Model No.B111AE074399 of configuration AELV2963-DC-2GB-320GB. As a matter of fact, the present O.Ps are reputed software company in India and dealing with the production and selling of computers and its allied products. Again the products of the present O.Ps used to come to the market after thorough testing in their manufacturing unit by highly trained professionals. Moreover, at the time of giving delivery of any product with the customer, the O.Ps used to check the item relating to its smooth functioning and then it is being handed over to the customer. So in this way the present complainant has taken delivery of one fully tested and smoothly functioning laptop with utmost satisfaction. However every electronic article a small mishandling/misuse without any intention creates the defects in the system. So if at all, it has happened to the laptop of the complainant, it is only after the delivery to the customer and subsequent mishandling by him. The said laptop was covered under the return to bench warranty and in case of any fault, the complainant is required to bring the laptop to the authorized service center and get the fault repaired. If any, herein the complainant instead of visiting the service centre has mentioned that he has written a complaint through email which was never received in present O.Ps. In response to Para 3 of the complaint petition, it is stated whenever the complainant has approached the servicing centre of the O.P.No.3, his problem has been solved with immediate effect. But due to mishandling of laptop a major defect has occurred in the system resulting which it is not possible in part of the servicing center of O.P.No.3 to repair the same at once. So far as the question of refund of laptop is concerned it is practically not possible on the part of the O.Ps because the petitioner has taken the laptop in a perfectly alright condition after testing the same at the time of purchase and with utmost satisfaction. In response to Para 4 & 5 admittedly the complainant has purchased the laptop for Rs.213,000/- on dated 30.12.2011 and was issued with a warranty card for one year i.e. up to 29.12.2012. As per the complaint petition on dated 10.10.2012 the complainant has issued a legal notice to the O.P.No.1 & 2 regarding malfunctioning of key board and mother board of the laptop. But as a matter of fact the system was brought before the O.Ps once only and it was solved immediately on dated 12.10.2012 i.e. within two days after receipt of the legal notice. As the complainant is alleging within time to time defect occurred in the key board and mother board and he has brought the same to the knowledge of the O.Ps, then he has to give strict proof of the same. Whenever a complaint is lodged with the answering O.Ps, a complaint number is issued to the complainant. But herein the complainant has failed to prove any complaint number which remained unresolved. In Para 6 of the complaint petition after receipt of the legal notice both the O.P.No.1 and 2 kept quite without tendering any response or reply to the complainant or his advocate is not correct. Because the problem in the key board and mother board of complainant’s system was resolved by the O.Ps on 12.10.2012 two days after the receipt of the legal notice. It is pertinent to mention here that apart from repairing the computer of the complainant the O.Ps have loaded three years antivirus pack in the laptop of the complainant but interestingly the complainant refused to sign the cell report with ulterior motive. The complainant has mishandled the laptop due to which a major defect has occurred in the system resulting which it is not possible on part of the servicing centre of O.Ps to provide further free service or replace the defective laptop which is a creation of the complainant. Again no such documents have been filed by the complainant to support his claim. The O.Ps have not adopted any illegal manner/unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The entire allegation raised by the complainant has been denied on behalf of O.Ps if anything has specifically not been denied, they are denied as a whole. Hence the O.P.No.2 &3 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing both parties are absent on call. This is a year old case since 2012. We have gone through the case record and also perused the written version, written argument and documents available on the case record. In his complaint petition supported by affidavit the complainant stated that the O.Ps failed to replace the defective Laptop or in alternative to refund the cost of the said laptop i.e. Rs.23,000/- during the warranty period. The complainant used the said laptop for a small period but as the laptop showed some error, he lodged the complaint with the O.P. No.1. Accordingly, his complaint was attended by the service engineer of the O.Ps who tried his level best but could not be able to rectify the mal function of the laptop. Therefore, the complainant brought the matter into the knowledge of O.P.No.1 & 2 and subsequently issued a legal notice dated 10.10.2012 on O.P.No.1 and 2. In the said notice it was also contended that the complainant would be constrained with no other option except to go for regular litigation for claiming the damages in respect of the defective laptop.
6. The O.Ps claim that after getting the legal notice they have solved the complainant’s grievance but the O.Ps have failed to file any documentary evidence that the malfunctioning key board and mother board of the complainant’s laptop is solved/rectified. Further, it reveals from the A.D. receipt filed by the complainant that the legal notice has been delivered to the O.P.No.1 on 12.10.2012. So, the version of O.Ps that they have solved the complainant’s grievance on 12.10.2012 is not believable.
7. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective Laptop computer of HCL of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand) only and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum. The complainant is also directed to return the defective laptop computer of HCL to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 14th March 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
